Tag: not endorsed

This took less than 10 seconds to decide. In fact, I never left the first page of the campaign site. John Bowles openly identifies with the values of the KKK. Endorsement is out of the question.

As I looked at Steve Adams I got thinking about some of the first things that a president has to do when they are elected. They have to choose a large number of people to fill high offices including cabinet positions. One of the things I have never addressed with some of the small, idealistic, independent campaigns is that many of these idealists, no matter how serious they are, would have no chance of picking a cabinet of people they knew anything about. They might be able to pick one or two somewhat qualified people, but otherwise they would have to rely on people they knew nothing about or else people who were utterly unqualified for this kind of responsibility. In either case they would be hampered in the confirmation process which would still go through the Senate (which would undoubtedly be controlled by established politicians). Though I trust myself implicitly, I would have to admit that I could not expect to succeed at that first process which every President must undertake. That is one of the major, almost universal, problems with these independent, unknown candidates.

There is a general explanation leading to why I cannot endorse Steve Adams specifically.

Tom Tancredo is best known (where he is known) for his position on immigration. That led me to expect very little from him as a candidate. I was pleasantly surprised to find a candidate who seems to have a very down-to-earth perspective. From my perspective he would be a capable president who would tackle the issues in a straightforward manner. I would expect him to work with others while standing for his principles.

I am happy to endorse Tom Tancredo for President.

UPDATE 5/21/2007: Based on further information resulting from comments below, I have concluded that I cannot endorse Tom Tancredo. I am not convinced that he is committed to many of the positions that he claims to hold – with the exception of his position on immigration. I fear that he is doing nothing more in this presidential run than muddying the waters of the Republican primary.

Outside of the three leading candidates from each of the two major parties I have heard more about Ron Paul in political discussions online than any other candidate. I have heard members of three distinct political parties interested in his candidacy. For that reason I have been very eager to learn more about him. Honestly, from all the discussion I only had a vague idea of what to expect.

I found a politician who is exceptionally principled with a long track record of sticking to his principles. Unfortunately I did not come away convinced that he would be willing/able to work with people who have varied viewpoints. Generally speaking I like the principles that he stands for, but if good principles stand in the way of actual progress then they are a stumbling block to the country. We have already seen for years the results of a president who does not feel the need to compromise. I don’t mean to suggest that Ron Paul would be like George W. Bush – they’re quite different – but he very well might be as insulated from outside influence as the current administration has been.

I struggled to come to grips with Congressman Paul but then I recognized what I was struggling with (lack of evidence that he could work effectively with the opposition) and realized that I could not endorse Ron Paul in 2008.

James McCall has the desire, but not the preparation to be President. Many of the issues he identifies are not centrol, and sometimes not even on the radar of the average voter. He recognizes the discontent of the citizenry, but seems to lack the ability to inspire others to make the changes that our country must make. I also notice that his priorities do not appear to focus on the most important issues.

I can’t endorse James McCall.

Although he is running for President, Mike Jingozian is more focused on the idea that we should remake our political machine. While the core values expressed have some merit, he fails to recognize that the vast majority of those who have the skills necessary to successfully operate our government are those who believe in, or more often have learned to work in conjunction with, our current political system. Calling exclusively for candidates outside that sphere will not result in better government, it will result in even more confusion and more room for exploitation by businesses and political professionals (like lobbyists and lawyers). It would be foolish to endorse this approach.

Donald Allen is an idealist. He talks about the major issues of today (Energy Independence, Social Security, Healthcare, etc.) but his campaign is exactly what I would expect for a person running for city council in a city of 25,000. Some people may be nostalgic for a time when leading our country was a matter of leading the people and expecting them to live virtuous lives. That is not the day we live in. We live in a bureaucracy with so much momentum that it requires an understanding of the mechanisms in motion in order to safely make a change. Dr. Allen would not be prepared for such a job as President.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most recognizable figures in American politics today. From a campaign standpoint that is generally a good thing. Hillary’s problem is that she is also one of the most divisive figures in American politics. She has worked hard to soften her image in preparation for this run, but whether she is sincere or not is immaterial in the face of the fact that so many people will not trust anything she says. Even if Hillary were becoming honestly less liberal than she used to be she could never gain the trust of a large section of American voters.

I do not mean to suggest that she could not become president, but I am very sure that if she did her presidency would be constantly hampered by attacks from those who oppose her. If she made even a tiny misstep her problems would grow even larger. While there are many candidates who would do little to unite our country (which it needs), there are few, if any, who could cause the division to grow more than Hillary would.

It is no wonder that Hillary does not have a section on her website that outlines her positions. They are irrelevant to her candidacy. Her name is her biggest asset as well as her fatal liability. I could never endorse a candidate who would have no chance of being effective – therefore I cannot endorse Hillary Clinton.

Duncan Hunter would make a very credible president for our country. He has years of experience in government and the military. He seems to be very principled in his positions and I like his perspective on how to make our federal government smaller. Representative Hunter may find that those who oppose him can more easily portray him as having extreme views than some of the other candidates, but to see his actual positions is to see that his views are not extreme so much as unwavering. Everything about him as a candidate suggests that I should endorse him, but something holds me back. For some reason I suspect that he can be more effective where he is, in the House of Representatives, than in the Oval Office. We need more men like him serving as strong representatives for their constituents across the country.

For that reason I choose not to endorse Duncan Hunter though I could not fault anyone who did endorse him.

Like all presidential candidates, there are areas where I agree and areas where I disagree with Christine Smith. That said, this was possibly the easiest evaluation I have had so far.

With positions such as “Immediately withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq regardless of the consequences” Chirstine displays the kind of disregard which will make her fully unelectable.

Her position on abortion sounds viable on the surface:

I do not believe the government should either encourage or discourage abortion; it should only protect women’s access to it, not fund it.

Upon consideration however, there is a gaping hole in that position which will leave neither side of that issue satisfied. If a woman on Medicaid wants an abortion, this position would anger the pro-life side if she got an abortion (assuming that Medicaid would have to pay for it) and it would anger the pro-choice side if she did not get one when Medicaid would not pay for it.

These half-baked positions mark this candidacy as flat and unpromising. I do not endorse Christine Smith.